17. VI. 1916.

Dear friend! N. K. writes to you about other matters, and I shall reply to your postscript to me.

You write that "our people have no malicious intentions," and you add that for the Kievans "it is a question of a single national issue and they write the articles themselves."

If that were the case, then why the § of the charter concerning the right of discussion for contributors on the demand of 2 (note: not even 3, but 2, i.e., distrust of Bukharin on the part of the Japanese)? Then this § would be devoid of meaning. And it would be an unprecedented thing for two editors out of 6-7 to demand "freedom" of discussion (supposedly discussion) not for themselves, but for contributors.

No. The Japanese woman cannot put meaningless paragraphs into a charter. The meaning in this paragraph is precisely this and only this: that our hands are tied, we turn out to be helpless against the Poles' strivings to introduce squabbling.

* See present volume, p. 250. Ed.

You write that you have not seen the "Gazeta Robotnicha" (you should have been sent both it and the resolution of the KZO, passed with Grigory's participation; I am writing to him and Zina right now to send it immediately). You write just then that therefore you "do not know what the matter is."

And at the same time, somehow you add: "I know, I feel, that you have grown cold toward Radek and Co."

Surely you'll agree that this is a bit strange. After all, my fears about squabbling from Radek and Co., my conviction about this proceeds precisely from facts concerning the "Vorbote" (I wrote you about it)*. That is one thing. And two, and most importantly: precisely from the "Gazeta Robotnicha."

It is in this newspaper that Radek and Co. began squabbling against us, when we have not written a single line against them anywhere!! 318 But that is a fact. One cannot brush aside facts. In the "Gazeta Robotnicha" the old "game" began (an expression from the KZO resolution) on our split with Chkheidze and Co., a Tyshka game, a chronic one, long familiar.

What is to be done? Either allow this game not only to grow unimpeded, but also to creep into our journal. This is precisely what the paragraph of the charter in the Japanese woman's draft leads to!

This would mean a hopeless, final war with Radek and Co.

You write as if against me that "it is disadvantageous for us to quarrel with the Zimmerwald Left."

I reply: precisely in order not to quarrel with Radek and Co. finally (and through them with others, in a pinch), precisely for this reason it is necessary to make the "game" and squabbling in our journal impossible.

This is why I refuse to go together with the discussing "contributors," refuse to go into the "Communist."

It is one of two things: if we agree to restore the "Communist," this means opening the road to the development of this squabbling, opening the gates to it ourselves. This is insane policy, in my conviction. Does the Japanese woman understand all of it? I do not know, and it does not matter: the "mechanics" of foreign

* See present volume, pp. 234-235. Ed.

relations itself would have led to this, independently of the maliciousness or angelic goodness and purity of the Japanese woman's intentions.

The other prospect: do not restore the "Communist." Publish another collection. Give discussion to the editors. Work through the national question. Give a rebuff to the game and intrigue of the "Gazeta Robotnicha."

Radek or his friends attacked in the "Gazeta Robotnicha." We replied in our collection 319, only in ours, note, not in a general one with the Zimmerwald lefts of other countries.

The matter is finished.

The Zimmerwald lefts, with whom Radek at Kienthal unsuccessfully tried to set us at odds (he wanted to deprive us of equality in the left's main commission before Platten and others: the lefts did not allow him this), - these Zimmerwald lefts have nothing to do with the struggle of the "Gazeta Robotnicha" against the "Collection of Social-Democrat."

The Zimmerwald lefts cannot intervene in this struggle, cannot be offended or complain: Radek and Co. attacked first in the "Gazeta Robotnicha," they were answered in the "Collection of Social-Democrat" (or in another collection). No efforts of Radek and Co., given such a state of affairs, are capable, absolutely incapable, of setting us at odds with the Zimmerwald lefts (as at Kienthal Radek did not set us at odds, although he tried, either with Platten or with the German left).

As long as Radek and Co. reply in the next issue of the "Gazeta Robotnicha" and we in another collection (I insist absolutely on agreements from collection to collection), a good deal of time will pass.

And during all this time, given such a state of affairs, the vile outburst of Radek and Co. in the "Gazeta Robotnicha" will be unable to set us at odds with the lefts.

This is why I said and say that I will under no circumstances go now either into the "Communist," nor for equality with the Japanese woman, nor at all together with Radek into our collection, because I am convinced that this means making a quarrel with the lefts inevitable.

If we publish "Communist" No. 3, then both Radek and Bronsky and Pannekoek (and the broad public) have the right to expect and will expect a continuation of the same, have the right to expect and will expect some sort of guarantees for contributors, have the right, finally (and this is especially important), to be offended and to intervene if we here reply to the vile conduct of the "Gazeta Robotnicha." Here the gates to squabbling are thrown wide open.

Here Radek and Co. will certainly set us at odds with the lefts, because at least Pannekoek has the most sacred right to say: I did not go into such a "Communist," I do not want them to "attack" the "Gazeta Robotnicha" (he will depict defense as attack: you know, after all, how that is done).

Here Radek and Co. have the right to publish any letter to the public both in Russian and in German, have the right to say: the "Communist" was in fact (this is a fact) your common organ + Pannekoek + Radek + Bronsky, and you in it "offend" the "Gazeta Robotnicha," you begin to split the Left and so on and so forth (as he already said at Kienthal, note this: he has already put this strategy to work at Kienthal).

And blame falls on us before all the lefts!! We allowed ourselves to be set at odds with the lefts, we fell into the Tyshka trap. This is what the continuation of the "Communist" leads to, this is why I refuse to go there.

On the contrary, I repeat, if in a special, new collection, without Pannekoek, Radek, Bronsky, we reply to the "Gazeta Robotnicha," reply to Bukharin and anyone you like, this absolutely does not concern the Zimmerwald Left, and it neither can intervene nor be offended. Radek cannot "complain" either before Pannekoek or before the Germans that the "Collection of Social-Democrat" replied to the "Gazeta Robotnicha."

And to this is added still the question of defeatism. The same thing.

And to this is added still the question of the Chkheidze faction. The same thing.
Because the "Gazeta Robotnicha" played on this.

If the Japanese woman has no "malicious intentions," she cannot refuse agreement on one collection (without

TO G. E. ZINOVIEV. JUNE 1916

Radek and the rest), with which we give discussion to the Japanese and Bukharin. We also agree to putting it in a special brochure (if Bukharin wants this, he can then look at my "tone" in advance, about which he expressed fears). Then it is possible to separate disputes with Bukharin from our general work with Bukharin.

My articles and Gr.'s on defeatism, self-determination, on the vile conduct of the "Gazeta Robotnicha," on Chkheidze, on "self-defense" and so on, yours on "military-industrial committees" and so on, Varin, Safarov (foreigners cannot be in this collection) and so on, and anything at all from Bukharin and the Japanese.

This is the plan of agreement on one collection.

The Japanese woman cannot refuse if she has no malicious intentions.

One cannot insist on the "Communist" if it has fallen apart; it is absurd and ridiculous to drag me forcibly into the "Communist": they will not drag me.

If the Japanese woman does not agree to a special collection, then she has malicious intentions or (it is all the same for the matter) her policy leads to malicious squabbling.

And then we alone publish the "Collection of Social-Democrat."

I shake your hand firmly.

Your Lenin

to Christiania (Oslo)

in the journal

Sent from Zurich

First published in 1929

"Proletarskaya Revolyutsiya" No. 7

Printed from the manuscript